Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[amateur51]

It perhaps should be restated that he was found guilty of murder by a court martial made up of military officers, not a civilian court. I don't believe any military officer connected with the trial has sought to offer excuses for what was done by Marine A.

You're right, french frank. It is the 'armchair critics' who have been demanding clemency, while those who have heard all the evidence have not done so.

[ahinton]

"I "attack" no one, including..........."

very clumsy, not your usual standard.

I concede that this might appear more insulting than I'd intended (especially since I intended no insult at all), as it could be construed that I regard Mr Pee as a "no one"; I accordingly rephease this as "I "attack" neither Mr Pee nor, for that matter, anyone else". I trust that this passes muster.

[Beef Oven!]

It is the 'armchair critics' who have been.............

Well that's a bit rich coming from you poppet! Everything's in firing-range from your armchair!! Lol!

[Beef Oven!]

I concede that this might appear more insulting than I'd intended (especially since I intended no insult at all), as it could be construed that I regard Mr Pee as a "no one"; I accordingly rephease this as "I "attack" neither Mr Pee nor, for that matter, anyone else". I trust that this passes muster.

I think this new wording is an improvement.

[ahinton]

Good link. The more I reflect, the more I think that the issue of extenuating circumstances is paramount in all of this.

So, as far as you are concerned, am51's observations that "what Marine A did was not in the line of duty (and) was clearly calculated with the victim prone and defenceless", that it "was not an act of self-defence or performed in defence of others" and that "the murder achieved nothing apart from the Marine's appearance before a Court Martial" and FF's that "he was found guilty of murder by a court martial made up of military officers, not a civilian court" and that no "military officer connected with the trial has sought to offer excuses for what was done by Marine A" all count for nothing, do they? If so, it's a good thing that you're not the presiding judge! That said, in what particular way/s do you believe that Marine A's action was specifically "in the line of his duty" as a serving marine in a war situation and in what particular "line of duty" do you see him as having committed this one murder?

[ahinton]

I think this new wording is an improvement.

Thank you - and thank you for drawing my attention to the less than ideal phrasing of the original.

[Mr Pee]

Well that's a bit rich coming from you poppet! Everything's in firing-range from your armchair!! Lol!

<Laugh> <Laugh> <Thumbs up>

(The above being a P&CA politically correct emoticon.)

[ahinton]

<Laugh> <Laugh> <Thumbs up>

(The above being a P&CA politically correct emoticon.)

While you're waiting to think up some kind of answer to my question, I'd like to ask another related one; if "supporting your country all the time" is indeed a definition of "patriotism" (even though it has yet to be established how such support could be given, by whom, when, for whose benefit and what form/s it might take), where does that leave those of dual nationality? - or do you perhaps regard the very fact of dual nationality as convenient bet-hedging at best and legalised traitorship at worst?...

[amateur51]

Well that's a bit rich coming from you poppet! Everything's in firing-range from your armchair!! Lol!

Note to the assembled dullards - I was quoting MrPee.

[amateur51]

So, as far as you are concerned, am51's observations that "what Marine A did was not in the line of duty (and) was clearly calculated with the victim prone and defenceless", that it "was not an act of self-defence or performed in defence of others" and that "the murder achieved nothing apart from the Marine's appearance before a Court Martial" and FF's that "he was found guilty of murder by a court martial made up of military officers, not a civilian court" and that no "military officer connected with the trial has sought to offer excuses for what was done by Marine A" all cpount for nothing, do they? If so, it's a good thing that you're not the presiding judge! That said, in what particular way/s do you believe that Marine A's action was specifically "in the line of his duty" as a serving marine in a war situation and in what particular "line of duty" do you see him as having committed this one murder?

I can see the case is likely to extend this armed struggle for a further five years at least unless an adequate sentence is dealt out to the Marine. His actions have potentially endangered the lives of every British soldier , their families and possibly all UK citizens.

[ahinton]

I can see the case is likely to extend this armed struggle for a further five years at least unless an adequate sentence is dealt out to the Marine. His actions have potentially endangered the lives of every British soldier , their families and possibly all UK citizens.

I'm not so sure that I'd go that far; you might be right, but only time will tell. That said, the great problem that it risks causing is that of focusing unwelcome attention of the behaviour of armed forces on active service in countgries where they have no business to be, despite the particular marine's utterly indefensible and unmitigable behaviour being the exceptional case that mercifully it is; in any event, however, if he is ultimately sentenced just like any other murderer (or even served with a harsher sentence than most on account of having breached the Geneva Convention and thereby his employment contract), I imagine that any risk of what you suggest here will be duly minimised if not dispensed with altogether.

[amateur51]

I'm not so sure that I'd go that far; you ight be right, but only time will tell. That said, the great problem that it risks causing is that of focusing unwelcome attention of the behaviour of armed forces on active service in countgries where they have no business to be, despite the particular marine's utterly indefensible and unmitigable behaviour being the exceptional case that mercifully it is; in any event, however, if he is ultimately sentenced just like any other murderer (or even served with a harsher sentence than most on account of having breached the Geneva Convention and thereby his employment contract), I imagine that any risk of what you suggest here will be duly minimised if not dispensed with altogether.

I accept your note of caution but I suggest that much will depend on what can be secured/identified as a positive British legacy by the citizens of Afghanistan. It will be a sad day if all that remains in the memory of some of Afghanistan's citizens is this dreadful episode.

[ahinton]

I accept your note of caution but I suggest that much will depend on what can be secured/identified as a positive British legacy by the citizens of Afghanistan. It will be a sad day if all that remains in the memory of some of Afghanistan's citizens is this dreadful episode.

It would indeed, but I really don't think that it will in practice; the Afghan "war" has been dragging wearyingly and wearisomely on for a duration that now well exceeds that of the two world wars put together and the legacy once all foreign troops have left is hardly likely to inspire confidence and satisfaction on the part of most Afghan citizens even without this latest ghastly incident, not least because that incident has nothing to do with the "war effort" per se, especially as it is quite clearly not an instance of a serving armed forces employee acting in the line of contractual duty (which is as good a reason as any for him not to be considered for a sentence more lenient than would customarily be served upon a cold blooded murderer).

[Beef Oven!]

So, as far as you are concerned, am51's observations that "what Marine A did was not in the line of duty (and) was clearly calculated with the victim prone and defenceless", that it "was not an act of self-defence or performed in defence of others" and that "the murder achieved nothing apart from the Marine's appearance before a Court Martial" and FF's that "he was found guilty of murder by a court martial made up of military officers, not a civilian court" and that no "military officer connected with the trial has sought to offer excuses for what was done by Marine A" all cpount for nothing, do they? If so, it's a good thing that you're not the presiding judge! That said, in what particular way/s do you believe that Marine A's action was specifically "in the line of his duty" as a serving marine in a war situation and in what particular "line of duty" do you see him as having committed this one murder?

Even my mouth is not so big as to get all those words in, Ahinton.

Could you please make your straw-man a little smaller please.

[amateur51]

Even my mouth is not so big as to get all those words in, Ahinton.

Could you please make your straw-man a little smaller please.

Your therapist is money down the drain, mate.
You're worse than ever.